Problem #1: Small Percentage of Suicides Found Gay
Problem #2: Gibson Cites Gay Studies With Unrepresentative Samples
An excerpt from "The Gay Youth Suicide Myth"
"... The genesis of the homosexual teen suicide myth lies in a deeply flawed and pro-homosexual report by San Francisco homosexual activist Paul Gibson. The paper, "Gay Male and Lesbian Youth Suicide," was included, as a supporting document, in a 1989 report by a special federal task force on youth suicide reporting to Dr. Louis Sullivan, former Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS). However, Secretary Sullivan repudiated and distanced his department from the Gibson paper:
...the views expressed in the paper entitled 'Gay Male and Lesbian Youth Suicide' do not in any way represent my personal beliefs or the policy of this Department.[2] Sullivan went on to say:
Indeed, I am strongly committed to advancing traditional family values. Federal policies must be crafted with great care so as to strengthen rather than undermine the institution of the family. In my opinion, the views expressed in the paper run contrary to that aim.[3] Dr. David Shaffer, one of the country's leading authorities on suicide among youth, notes that Gibson's paper "was never subjected to the rigorous peer review that is required for publication in a scientific journal and contained no new research findings."[4]...
Although Gibson's report was denounced by Secretary Sullivan, homosexual activists have skillfully used it to claim that "government statistics" support their suicide assertions. Pro-gay articles routinely (and mistakenly) cite Gibson's unproven statistics as part of the HHS task force's official conclusions on youth suicide.[6] Gibson himself has declined an interview with the author to discuss his controversial assertions.[7]...
The myth of a gay teen suicide epidemic is built upon a flimsy statistical foundation. Gibson, a homosexual social worker in San Francisco, uses statistics from mainly homosexual sources and then extrapolates them to the general youth population using the discredited Kinsey estimate of a 10 percent gay population.
A perusal of Gibson's report turns up numerous contradictions and statistical impossibilities. For example, he refers to one author who speculated in 1985 (in the gay newspaper, The Washington Blade) that as many as 3,000 gay youths kill themselves a year-a number that exceeds the total number of annual teen suicides by more than a thousand.[13]
To reach his core conclusions on the high rate of homosexual suicides, Gibson points to assorted gay survey studies that claim homosexual youth are far more likely than their heterosexual counterparts to have considered or to have attempted suicide. These studies rely on surveys of troubled and often runaway youth. Generally, they have found a much higher rate (two to four times higher) of suicidal tendencies in their "gay" respondents compared with their "straight" respondents. Gibson then multiplies this higher rate by the disputed Kinsey figure of a 10 percent homosexual population to produce his figure that 30 percent of all youth suicides involve homosexual youth.
David Shaffer, a Columbia University psychiatrist and specialist on adolescent suicide, has said, "I struggled for a long time over [Gibson's] mathematics, but, in the end, it seemed more hocus-pocus than math."[14] Nevertheless, Gibson's claims have been repeated over and over as homosexual activists have made them part of their lore..."
Also see:
From Tolerance to Affirmation: One School's Experience with a Gay-Affirmative Program
The Day of Silence was first observed in 1996 and according to www.dayofsilence.org, the day is a project of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) in collaboration with the United States Student Association.
It’s described as “a student-led day of action where those who support making anti-LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual) bias unacceptable in schools take a day-long vow of silence to recognize and protest the discrimination and harassment — in effect, the silencing— experienced by LGBT students and their allies.”
The claim that these events are "student-led" is a ruse. It starts with adult influence and direction:
An excerpt from "From Tolerance to Affirmation: One School's Experience with a Gay-Affirmative Program"
"... Gay agitation began during the 1992-93 school year. A group of teachers, led by a dedicated gay and lesbian promoter, banded together to discuss a problem. The teachers were told that gay students were being discriminated against--harassed, beaten up, and called names within the confines of the school. Although these incidents, whether real or created, would normally be handled by the dean's office, it was resolved that because the target of these incidents was gay students, more intense efforts needed to be made...
Some teachers actively taught "tolerance" from the pulpit of the classroom, and began to incorporate gay and lesbian themes into their lessons...
In summary:
- Once the gay and lesbian agenda establishes itself in a district, that agenda starts to expand. It is typically first introduced under the philosophy of "making schools safe."
- Gay and lesbian activists choose words and phrases which make their agenda sound innocuous. Teachers are taught to respect diversity, but this respect is used by the activists to further a larger agenda. Teachers who oppose the group are labeled intolerant and warned of the fear and bigotry they are spreading among their students.
- There is covert spreading of rainbow symbols throughout the school. The symbols are said to stand for the broader issue of respect for diversity.
- Information about the group is quietly passed to students; soon the whole school is aware that a "pro-gay" group exists among the teachers.
- Since the group is not recognized by the school, it is impossible for parents to influence it, or ask for its closure.
- Although not official, the group gains credibility through each successive mailing, meeting, and forum.
Soon, students confused about their sexual identity begin to come out publicly, becoming activists themselves. Gay pride symbols appear on the student TV station. One boy enters the school talent show dressed in drag as Madonna; two young boys, and two girls, make public the fact that they are going to the prom "as a foursome." The idea soon grows that it is "cool," "different," and "chic" to be gay. Because the students are perceived as the initiators of these actions, there is no administrative censure.
Activist teachers become more public in their attempts to pass on the tenets of gay activism. Students are by now required to read books that have explicit gay and lesbian stories, and they are humiliated in class if they express any reservations about homosexuality.
The administration, sensing that this has become an issue, now decides to include the gay group among the school's official organizations--listing it along with other support groups for issues of divorce, alcoholism and pregnancy. A gay-activist teacher is made the head, aided by a sympathetic social worker from Project 10. Parents are not contacted if their child enters the Project 10 group.
The group's social worker now states that he believes that sexual identity is not an issue that has anything to do with values.
At a meeting of a student's discussion club, the leader of the gay activist group makes several announcements:
- The rainbow signs that had appeared throughout the school were not just "respect diversity" signs; they were actually gay pride signs. (Every counselor, by that time, already had one in his office.)
- "Tolerance" was not the goal, after all, because "tolerance" implies that there is something wrong with being gay, and of course there is not.
- Gay rights are said to be in the same category as civil rights for ethnic minorities; therefore in the future, the school will offer gay-affirmative curricula.
- The name of the support group is now "Project 10," referring to the "fact" that 10% of the population is gay..."
An example from the recent "Day of Silence" campaign:
An excerpt from "'Day of Silence' questioned: Principal plans to discuss teachers' participation in gay rights event" by Patty Maher, Ann Arbor News Staff Reporter, Saturday, April 24, 2004
"The principal at Huron High School questions whether or not two teachers who participated Wednesday in a Day of Silence to advocate for gay rights should be allowed to do it again next year.
However, district officials have no policy against political activism in the classroom.
Principal Arthur Williams said he plans to have a group discussion with teachers and administrators about expectations regarding teachers' political activism in the classroom.
"I think you can talk about the various sides of the issue without advocating for any," said Williams, who added he would not be in favor of teacher participation in a Day of Silence against racism, sexism or any other social or political cause.
English teachers and co-advisors of Huron's Gay Straight Alliance Sarah Andrew-Vaughan and Aimee Grant taught without speaking on Wednesday, handing out written instructions and communicating with students on note pads and chalkboards.
They shared with students a paragraph explaining the reason for their quiet: Protest of the silence faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning people and their allies. Williams said he did not realize that teachers had participated in the day-long event until Thursday and he thought it was going to be a "moment" of silence for students, not a whole day of speechlessness.
Although Williams is concerned about teachers expressing political viewpoints in school, district spokeswoman Liz Margolis said Ann Arbor Public Schools has no policy regulating such activity.
"We are very supportive of the groups in the schools, the gay and lesbian and transgender alliances," Margolis said. "I think as long as there was not a disruption in class and class could continue on, it probably offered kids something ..."
Andrew-Vaughan said she doesn't know whether or not it would be appropriate for a teacher to participate in a Day of Silence to express an opinion on an issue such as abortion rights or gun control, but she had no qualms about supporting gay rights.
"I think that teachers should be allowed to take a stand on Ann Arbor's non-discrimination policy and that's what I did," Andrew-Vaughan said.
Andrew-Vaughan and Williams both said Friday that no parents had called to question the teachers' activism. She said she and Grant planned their lessons carefully, gave clear written instructions and answered all students' questions in writing.
"In fact, I think that we say more with silence sometimes than we do with many words," Andrew-Vaughan said..."
"The Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, or GLSEN, today announced student-led local and national plans for what will be the largest-ever youth-led event dedicated to ending discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) students in schools. The 9th annual Day of Silence will be observed on April 21, 2004, and is expected to break last year’s record-setting participation of more than 200,000 students and teachers in nearly 2,000 K – 12 schools from across the nation.
“It is with great pride and excitement that GLSEN once again prepares to coordinate the Day of Silence,” said GLSEN Executive Director Kevin Jennings. “We here at GLSEN are incredibly inspired by the great number of students who will be silently, yet powerfully, standing up for themselves, their peers and the ideals of safety and respect for all.”
For the third straight year GLSEN is leading the coordination of the Day of Silence, which was founded in 1996 by students at the University of Virginia, and by 2002 had become a landmark national event. During the Day, participating students, teachers and faculty, take a vow of silence to protest discrimination leveled at LGBT people in their schools..."
Kevin, Kevin, Kevin -- it's not a student-led event, and you know it!
An excerpt from "The Danger of 'Safe Schools'" by Scott Lively
"Like a page torn from George Orwell's 1984, America's newest social experiment is called "Safe Schools." Evoking soothing images of responsible officials taking special precautions to prevent school shootings and violence, "Safe Schools" is really Orwellian newspeak for a complex scheme to legitimize homosexuality to schoolchildren.
Planned and implemented by "gay" political activists within the educational bureaucracy of numerous states, "safe schools" is one of the most devious and dangerous social engineering programs ever to be foisted on public school children and their inattentive parents. It's purpose is to indoctrinate impressionable children with pro-homosexual beliefs and values as part of a cynical scheme by the "gay" movement to gain political power. Homosexual activists hope to produce a pro-"gay" voting majority by winning a high percentage of young people to the homosexual "cause" during their formative years. This strategy appears to be working. As reported by Reuters, a recent Zogby poll of high school students nationwide found that 85 percent of seniors thought that homosexuality "should be accepted by society."1
"Safe Schools" is the brainchild of Kevin Jennings, a "gay" political strategist who formed the Gay Lesbian Straight Teachers Network (GLSTN) in Massachusetts in the mid-1990s as a Trojan horse to get homosexual activism into the public schools. The name was afterwards changed to Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network (GLSEN), a strategic correction designed to soften its image and obscure what it had at first advertised: that it is a group of activist homsexual teachers.
Jennings bragged in a 1995 speech to the Human Rights Campaign Fund Leadership Conference that "[T]he effective reframing of this issue was the key to...success. We immediately seized upon the opponent's calling card -- safety -- and explained how homophobia represents a threat to students' safety by creating a climate where violence, name-calling, health problems, and suicide are common. Titling our report ‘Making Schools Safe for Gay and Lesbian Youth,' we automatically threw our opponents onto the defensive and stole their best line of attack. This framing short-circuited their arguments and left them back-pedaling from day one."
GLSEN's deception has been enormously successful. As of this date, it has more than 70 chapters strategically placed in key cities across the nation, each of which works to force its agenda into the schools within its jurisdiction. Literally hundreds of public high schools have been transformed, to a greater or lesser degree, into training grounds for pro-"gay" militancy. It's Spring 2001 financial report boasted a budget of over $2.5 million. This is of course, above the amount now designated by state governments for GLSEN-inspired programs. In Massachusetts, for example, pro-homosexual programs now receive more than $1.5 million per year.
One of GLSEN's primary recruitment vehicles is the Gay/Straight Alliance student clubs. The right of students to form non-curricular student clubs under the First Amendment was specifically affirmed in the federal Equal Access Act. Exploiting the broad language of the Act, GLSEN recruits and trains self-declared "gay" teens to form student clubs on high school campuses. These clubs then serve as peer-based centers of "gay" prosthletyzing and propaganda. (To be fair, Christian and pro-family clubs have the same opportunities under Equal Access, but pervasive "political correctness" at schools, combined with widespread apathy in the church today, works to limit the influence and involvement of Christian and pro-family students)...
While many people in California and across the nation have stepped forward to oppose the "Safe Schools" agenda, their efforts have been complicated by some very clever sophistry on the part of "gay" strategists. What follows is an analysis and refutation of the argument that underlies the "Safe Schools" program..."